Statistical approaches for evaluating surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: A systematic review

References

• Abrahantes, J. C., Burzykowski, T. (2010). Simplified modeling strategies for surrogate validation with multivariate failure-time data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 54:1457–1466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahantes, J. C., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Shkedy, Z., Abad, A. A., Renard, D. (2004). Choice of units of analysis and modeling strategies in multilevel hierarchical models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 47:537–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahantes, J. C., Shkedy, Z., Molenberghs, G. (2008). Alternative methods to evaluate trial level surrogacy. Clinical Trials 5:194–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., Geys, H., Molenberghs, G., Kenward, M. G., Vangeneugden, T. (2003). Validation of surrogate markers in multiple randomized clinical trials with repeated measurements. Biometrical Journal 45:931–945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., Geys, H., Molenberghs, G., Kenward, M. G., Vangeneugden, T. (2004a). Validation of surrogate markers in multiple randomized clinical trials with repeated measurements: Canonical correlation approach. Biometrics 60:845–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., Geys, H., Molenberghs, G., Vangeneugden, T. (2002). Investigating the criterion validity of psychiatric symptom scales using surrogate marker validation methodology. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 12:161–178.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G. (2007). Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective. Biometrics 63:180–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G. (2008). Evaluating time to cancer recurrence as a surrogate marker for survival from an information theory perspective. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 17:497–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, I., Renard, D., Geys, H., Shkedy, Z., Tibaldi, F., Abrahantes, J. C., Buyse, M. (2007). Quantifying the effect of the surrogate marker by information gain – Reply. Biometrics 63:962–963.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., Geys, H., Shkedy, Z., Tibaldi, F., Abrahantes, J. C., Buyse, M. (2004b). Prentice’s approach and the meta-analytic paradigm: A reflection on the role of statistics in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 60:724–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G., Geys, H., Buyse, M., Vangeneugden, T. (2006). A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice’s criteria. Statistics in Medicine 25:205–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, S. G. (2006). A simple meta-analytic approach for using a binary surrogate endpoint to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint. Biostatistics 7:58–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, S. G. (2008). Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 17:505–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, S. G. (2009). Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials (vol. 17, p. 505, 2008). Statistical Methods in Medical Research 18:227–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, S. G., Izmirlian, G., Kipnis, V. (2005). Resolving paradoxes involving surrogate end points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A – Statistics in Society 168:753–762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, S. G., Kramer, B. S. (2003). A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make. BMC Medical Research Methodology 3:16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baker, S. G., Kramer, B. S. (2012). Surrogate endpoint analysis: An exercise in extrapolation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, S. G., Sargent, D. J., Buyse, M., Burzykowski, T. (2012). Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: An extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time. Biometrics 68:248–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begg, C. B., Leung, D. H. (2000). On the use of surrogate end points in randomized trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 163:15–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benda, N., Gerlinger, C. (2007). Sperm count as a surrogate endpoint for male fertility control. Statistics in Medicine 26:4905–4913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, V. W., Izmirlian, G., Knoll, D. (2012). Discussions. Biometrics 68:239–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burzykowski, T., Buyse, M. (2006). Surrogate threshold effect: An alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharmaceutical Statistics 5:173–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burzykowski, T., Molenberghs, G., Buyse, M. (2003). The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: A case‐study in advanced colorectal cancer. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 167:103–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burzykowski, T., Molenberghs, G., Buyse, M. (2005). The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Burzykowski, T., Molenberghs, G., Buyse, M., Geys, H., Renard, D. (2001). Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 50:405–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G. (1998). Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics, 1014–1029.
   Google Scholar
• Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T. (2000a). Correction to ‘Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments’ by M. Buyse and G. Molenberghs ( Biometrics 1998;54:1014–1029). Biometrics 56:324–325.
   Google Scholar
• Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., Geys, H. (2000b). The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 1:49–67.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen, C., Wang, H. W., Snapinn, S. M. (2003a). Proportion of treatment effect (PTE) explained by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 22:3449–3459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, H., Geng, Z., Jia, J. Z. (2007). Criteria for surrogate end points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B – Statistical Methodology 69:919–932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S. X., Leung, D. H. Y., Qin, J. (2003b). Information recovery in a study with surrogate endpoints. Journal of the American Statistical Association 98:1052–1062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S. X., Leung, D. H. Y., Qin, J. (2008). Improving semiparametric estimation by using surrogate data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B – Statistical Methodology 70:803–823.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conlon, A., Taylor, J. M., Elliott, M. R. (2013). Surrogacy assessment using principal stratification when surrogate and outcome measures are multivariate normal. Biostatistics 15:266–283.
   Google Scholar
• Cowles, M. K. (2002). Bayesian estimation of the proportion of treatment effect captured by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 21:811–834.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, D. R., Wermuth, N. (2004). Causality: A statistical view. International Statistical Review 72:285–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dai, J. Y., Hughes, J. P. (2012). A unified procedure for meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate end points in randomized clinical trials. Biostatistics 13:609–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, N., Duffy, S. (1996). Trial design based on surrogate end points – Application to comparison of different breast screening frequencies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) 159:49–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deslandes, E., Chevret, S. (2007). Assessing surrogacy from the joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal data and survival: Application to clinical trial data on chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Statistics in Medicine 26:5411–5421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dibaj, S., Faghihzadeh, S., Jalaie, S. (2010). Mistake on quantifying the indirect treatment effect via surrogate markers. Letter to the editor about paper by Y. Qu and M. Case (Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:223–231). Statistics in Medicine 29:2067.
   Google Scholar
• Ditlevsen, S., Christensen, U., Lynch, J., Damsgaard, M. T., Keiding, N. (2005a). The mediation proportion: A structural equation approach for estimating the proportion of exposure effect on outcome explained by an intermediate variable. Epidemiology 16:114–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ditlevsen, S., Keiding, N., Christensen, U., Damsgaard, M. T., Lynch, J. (2005b). Mediation proportion. Letter to the editor about paper by S. Ditlevsen, U. Christensen, J. Lynch, et al. (Epidemiology 2005; 16:114–120). Epidemiology 16:5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunning, A. J. (2008). Comment on ‘Evaluating a surrogate endpoint at three levels, with application to vaccine development’. Letter to the editor about paper by P. B. Gilbert, L. Qin and S. G. Self (Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:4758–4778). Statistics in Medicine 27:6268–6270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, M. R., LI, Y., Taylor, J. M. G. (2013). Accommodating missingness when assessing surrogacy via principal stratification. Clinical Trials 10:363–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emsley, R., Dunn, G., White, I. R. (2010). Mediation and moderation of treatment effects in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 19:237–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming, T. R., Demets, D. L. (1996). Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Annals of Internal Medicine 125:605–613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming, T. R., Prentice, R. L., Pepe, M. S., Glidden, D. (1994). Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research. Statistics in Medicine 13:955–968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frangakis, C. E., Rubin, D. B. (2004). Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 58:21–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, L. (2005). Commentary on ‘Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models’. Commentary on paper by E. L. Korn, P. S. Albert and L. M. McShane ( Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:163–182). Statistics in Medicine 24: 183–185.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, L. S., Graubard, B. I., Schatzkin, A. (1992). Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine 11:167–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, D. (2008a). Composite endpoint analysis for assessing surrogacy with censored data. Technical Report. Department of Statistics, Penn State University. URL: http://works.bepress.com/debashis_ghosh/27
   Google Scholar
• Ghosh, D. (2008b). Semiparametric inference for surrogate endpoints with bivariate censored data. Biometrics 64:149–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, D. (2009). On assessing surrogacy in a single trial setting using a semicompeting risks paradigm. Biometrics 65:521–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, D., Elliott, M. R., Taylor, J. M. G. (2010). Links between analysis of surrogate endpoints and endogeneity. Statistics in Medicine 29:2869–2879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, D., Taylor, J. M. G., Sargent, D. J. (2012a). Meta-analysis for surrogacy: Accelerated failure time models and semicompeting risks modeling. Biometrics 68:226–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, D., Taylor, J. M. G., Sargent, D. J. (2012b). Rejoinder for “Meta-analysis for surrogacy: accelerated failure time models and semicompeting risks modeling”. Biometrics 68:245–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, P. B., Bosch, R. J., Hudgens, M. G. (2003). Sensitivity analysis for the assessment of causal vaccine effects on viral load in HIV vaccine trials. Biometrics 59:531–541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, P. B., Hudgens, M. (2006). Evaluating causal effect predictiveness of candidate surrogate endpoints. UW Biostatistics Working Paper Series, Paper 291.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, P. B., Hudgens, M. G. (2008). Evaluating candidate principal surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 64:1146–1154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, P. B., Hudgens, M. G., Wolfson, J. (2011). Commentary on “Principal stratification – A goal or a tool?” by Judea Pearl. The International Journal of Biostatistics 7:1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, P. B., Qin, L., Self, S. G. (2008). Evaluating a surrogate endpoint at three levels, with application to vaccine development. Statistics in Medicine 27:4758–4778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, P. B., Qin, L., Self, S. G. (2009). Response to Andrew Dunning’s comment on ‘Evaluating a surrogate endpoint at three levels, with application to vaccine development’. Authors’ reply to letter to the editor by A. J. Dunning (Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:6268–6270). Statistics in Medicine 28:716–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, J., Huang, B. (2010). Evaluating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a continuous surrogate marker in logistic or probit regression models. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 2:29–238.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Y., Gilbert, P. B. (2011). Comparing biomarkers as principal surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 67:1442–1451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joffe, M. (2011). Principal stratification and attribution prohibition: Good ideas taken too far. International Journal of Biostatistics 7:1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joffe, M. M., Greene, T. (2009). Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics 65:530–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. R., Freemantle, N., Anthony, D. M., Lassere, M. N. D. (2009). LDL-cholesterol differences predicted survival benefit in statin trials by the surrogate threshold effect (STE). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62:328–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ju, C. A., Geng, Z. (2010). Criteria for surrogate end points based on causal distributions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B – Statistical Methodology 72:129–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, E. L., Meier, P. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association 53:457–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassai, B., Shah, N. R., Leizorovicza, A., Cucherat, M., Gueyffier, F., Boissel, J. P. (2005). The true treatment benefit is unpredictable in clinical trials using surrogate outcome measured with diagnostic tests. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58:1042–1051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, R. (2004). Biomarkers and surrogate markers: An FDA perspective. NeuroRx 1:189–195.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaufman, J. S., Maclehose, R. F., Kaufman, S., Greenland, S. (2005). The mediation proportion. Letter to the editor about paper by S. Ditlevsen, N. Keiding, U. Christensen, et al. (Epidemiology 2005; 16:114–120). Epidemiology 16:710.
   Google Scholar
• Korn, E. L., Albert, P. S., Mcshane, L. M. (2005a). Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Statistics in Medicine 24:163–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korn, E. L., Albert, P. S., Mcshane, L. M. (2005b). Rejoinder to commentary by Dr Freedman of ‘Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models’. Rejoinder to commentary by L. Freedman (Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:183–185). Statistics in Medicine 24: 187–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassere, M., Johnson, K., Hughes, M., Altman, D., Buyse, M., Galbraith, S., Wells, G. (2007a). Simulation studies of surrogate endpoint validation using single trial and multitrial statistical approaches. The Journal of Rheumatology 34:616–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassere, M. N. (2008). The biomarker-surrogacy evaluation schema: A review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 17:303–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassere, M. N., Johnson, K. R., Boers, M., Tugwell, P., Brooks, P., Simon, L., Strand, V., Conaghan, P. G., Ostergaard, M., Maksymowych, W. P., Landewe, R., Bresnihan, B., Tak, P. P., Wakefield, R., Mease, P., Bingham, C. O., Hughes, M., Altman, D., Buyse, M., Galbraith, S., Wells, G. (2007b). Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. Journal of Rheumatology 34:607–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, W., Qu, Y. M. (2010). Adjustment for the measurement error in evaluating biomarkers. Statistics in Medicine 29:2338–2346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Taylor, J. M. G., Elliott, M. R. (2010). A Bayesian approach to surrogacy assessment using principal stratification in clinical trials. Biometrics 66:523–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Taylor, J. M. G., Elliott, M. R., Sargent, D. J. (2011). Causal assessment of surrogacy in a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer trials. Biostatistics (Oxford, England) 12:478–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Brown, C. H., Wang, W., Hoffman, J. M. (2007). The intermediate endpoint effect in logistic and probit regression. Clinical Trials 4:499–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mealli, F., Mattei, A. (2012). A refreshing account of principal stratification. The International Journal of Biostatistics 8:1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Miao, X. P., Wang, Y. C., Gangopadhyay, A. (2012). An entropy-based nonparametric test for the validation of surrogate endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 31:1517–1530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molenberghs, G. (2012). Discussion contribution to 091037PR4 (Ghosh, Taylor, and Sargent). Biometrics 68:233–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Alonso, A., Buyse, M. (2004). A perspective on surrogate endpoints in controlled clinical trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 13:177–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molenberghs, G., Geys, H., Buyse, M. (2001). Evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments with mixed discrete and continuous outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 20:3023–3038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’quigley, J., Flandre, P. (2006). Quantification of the prentice criteria for surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 62:297–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2011). Principal stratification – A goal or a tool? The International Journal of Biostatistics 7:20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pearl, J., Bareinboim, E. (2011). Transportability across studies: A formal approach. DTIC Document.
   Google Scholar
• Plackett, R. L. (1965). A class of bivariate distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 60:516–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prentice, R. L. (1989). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 8:431–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryseley, A., Tilahun, A., Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G. (2007). Information-theory based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with continuous true and binary surrogate endpoints. Clinical Trials 4:587–597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryseley, A., Tilahun, A., Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G. (2010). Using earlier measures in a longitudinal sequence as a potential surrogate for a later one. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 54:1342–1354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryseley, A., Tilahun, A., Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G. (2011). An information-theoretic approach to surrogate-marker evaluation with failure time endpoints. Lifetime Data Analysis 17:195–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin, L., Gilbert, P. B., Corey, L., Mcelrath, M. J., Self, S. G. (2007). A framework for assessing immunological correlates of protection in vaccine trials. Journal of Infectious Diseases 196:1304–1312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin, L., Gilbert, P. B., Follmann, D., Li, D. F. (2008). Assessing surrogate endpoints in vaccine trials with case-cohort sampling and the Cox model. Annals of Applied Statistics 2:386–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qu, Y., Case, M. (2007). Quantifying the effect of the surrogate marker by information gain. Biometrics 63:958–962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qu, Y. M., Case, M. (2006). Quantifying the indirect treatment effect via surrogate markers. Statistics in Medicine 25:223–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qu, Y. M., Case, M. (2010). Reply to ‘Mistake on quantifying the indirect treatment effect via surrogate markers’. Authors’ reply to letter to the editor by S. Dibaj, S. Faghihzadeh and S. Jalaie (Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:2067). Statistics in Medicine 29:2068.
   Google Scholar
• Renard, D., Geys, H., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Buyse, M. (2002). Validation of surrogate endpoints in multiple randomized clinical trials with discrete outcomes. Biometrical Journal 44:921–935.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renard, D., Geys, H., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Buyse, M., Vangeneugden, T. (2003). Validation of a longitudinally measured surrogate marker for a time-to-event endpoint. Journal of Applied Statistics 30:235–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renfro, L. A., Shi, Q., Sargent, D. J., Carlin, B. P. (2012). Bayesian adjusted R2 for the meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate time-to-event endpoints in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 31:743–761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robins, J. M., Greenland, S. (1992). Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 3:143–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (2004). Direct and indirect causal effects via potential outcomes*. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 31:161–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkar, S., Qu, Y. M. (2007). Quantifying the treatment effect explained by markers in the presence of measurement error. Statistics in Medicine 26:1955–1963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. E., Weaver, W. (1948). The mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379–423, 623–656.
   Google Scholar
• Shi, Q., Renfro, L. A., Bot, B. M., Burzykowski, T., Buyse, M., Sargent, D. J. (2011). Comparative assessment of trial-level surrogacy measures for candidate time-to-event surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 55:2748–2757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. M. G., Wang, Y., Thiebaut, R. (2005). Counterfactual links to the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics 61:1102–1111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tibaldi, F., Abrahantes, J. C., Molenberghs, G., Renard, D., Burzykowski, T., Buyse, M., Parmar, M., Stijnen, T., Wolfinger, R. (2003). Simplified hierarchical linear models for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 73:643–658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tibaldi, F., Barbosa, F. T., Molenberghs, G. (2004). Modelling associations between time-to-event responses in pilot cancer clinical trials using a Plackett-Dale model. Statistics in Medicine 23:2173–2186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilahun, A., Maringwa, J., Geys, H., Alonso, A., Raeymaekers, L., Molenberghs, G., Kieboom, G. V. D., Drinkenburg, P., Bijnens, L. (2009). Investigating association between behavior, corticosterone, heart rate, and blood pressure in rats using surrogate marker evaluation methodology. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 19:133–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilahun, A., Pryseley, A., Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G. (2007). Flexible surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with continuous endpoints, using R and SAS. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51:4152–4163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilahun, A., Pryseley, A., Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G. (2008). Information theory–based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with binary endpoints, using SAS. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 18:326–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Walraven, C., Oake, N., Coyle, D., Taljaard, M., Forster, A. J. (2009). Changes in surrogate outcomes can be translated into clinical outcomes using a Monte Carlo model. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62:1306–1315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., Mogg, R., Lunceford, J. (2012). Evaluating correlation-based metric for surrogate marker qualification within a causal correlation framework. Biometrics 68:617–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., Taylor, J. M. (2002). A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics 58:803–812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir, C. J., Walley, R. J. (2006). Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: A literature review. Statistics in Medicine 25:183–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfson, J., Gilbert, P. (2010). Statistical identifiability and the surrogate endpoint problem, with application to vaccine trials. Biometrics 66:1153–1161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Z., He, P., Geng, Z. (2011). Sufficient conditions for concluding surrogacy based on observed data. Statistics in Medicine 30:2422–2434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zigler, C. M., Belin, T. R. (2012). A Bayesian approach to improved estimation of causal effect predictiveness for a principal surrogate endpoint. Biometrics 68:922–932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar